Author
Topic: Aionios: Let's clear the water (Read 61032 times)

Plato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . .

Plato's Timaeus

KRONOS Time

WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (imperceptible/aidiwn) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidion/imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aiwnios/eonian), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.

time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of the eternal (diaiwnias/eonian) nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for the pattern exists from eternity (aiwna/eon), and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time. Such was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time. The sun and moon and five other stars, which are called the planets, were created by him in order to distinguish and preserve the numbers of time; and when he had made-their several bodies, he placed them in the orbits in which the circle of the other was revolving-in seven orbits seven stars. First, there was the moon in the orbit nearest the earth, and next the sun, in the second orbit above the earth; then came the morning star and the star sacred to Hermes, moving in orbits which have an equal swiftness with the sun, but in an opposite direction; and this is the reason why the sun and Hermes and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken by each other. To enumerate the places which he assigned to the other stars, and to give all the reasons why he assigned them, although a secondary matter, would give more trouble than the primary. These things at some future time, when we are at leisure, may have the consideration which they deserve, but not at present.

Now, when all the stars which were necessary to the creation of time had attained a motion suitable to them,-and had become living creatures having bodies fastened by vital chains, and learnt their appointed task, moving in the motion of the diverse, which is diagonal, and passes through and is governed by the motion of the same, they revolved, some in a larger and some in a lesser orbit-those which had the lesser orbit revolving faster, and those which had the larger more slowly. Now by reason of the motion of the same, those which revolved fastest appeared to be overtaken by those which moved slower although they really overtook them; for the motion of the same made them all turn in a spiral, and, because some went one way and some another, that which receded most slowly from the sphere of the same, which was the swiftest, appeared to follow it most nearly. That there might be some visible measure of their relative swiftness and slowness as they proceeded in their eight courses, God lighted a fire, which we now call the sun, in the second from the earth of these orbits, that it might give light to the whole of heaven, and that the animals, as many as nature intended, might participate in number, learning arithmetic from the revolution of the same and the like. Thus then, and for this reason the night and the day were created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution. And the month is accomplished when the moon has completed her orbit and overtaken the sun, and the year when the sun has completed his own orbit. Mankind, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time. And yet there is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfils the perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together and attain their completion at the same time, measured by the rotation of the same and equally moving. After this manner, and for these reasons, came into being such of the stars as in their heavenly progress received reversals of motion, to the end that the created heaven might imitate the eternal (diaiwnias/eonian) nature, and be as like as possible to the perfect and intelligible animal.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

as far as I know the Jews Philo or Flavius Josephus used aidion to denote endless duration and aionios to denote limited duration, i've read it somewhere, there are so many statements outside, some contradicting each other, so you can trust nobody

@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

Logged

Apocatastasis

Plato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . .

Plato's Timaeus

KRONOS Time

WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (imperceptible/aidiwn) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidion/imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aiwnios/eonian), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression.

Tony,

First off, why are you neglecting to post your own translation of Plato? Don't you remember your silly literal rendering of Timaeus 37d that you were advocating over translations such as the one you quoted above? I'm sure the readers here would like to see your novel translation.

Secondly, you mean to tell me that the fact that this chapter is about time means that the concept of eternity is not referenced to? Is this suppoed to be a logical argument?

Thirdly, it is clear to any competent reader that according to the text time (kronos) is the "moving image" of eternity (aionios). Tony, you yourself concede as much with this:

Plato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . . Tony,

Quote

First off, why are you neglecting to post your own translation of Plato? Don't you remember your silly literal rendering of Timaeus 37d that you were advocating over translations such as the one you quoted above? I'm sure the readers here would like to see your novel translation.

Secondly, you mean to tell me that the fact that this chapter is about time means that the concept of eternity is not referenced to? Is this suppoed to be a logical argument?

Thirdly, it is clear to any competent reader that according to the text time (kronos) is the "moving image" of eternity (aionios). Tony, you yourself concede as much with this:

Quote

while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity

[/quote][/quote]

Apoc/Gabe, the word "eternity" in "while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity" means that "eternity" with a strike through is not proper. It means that "eonian" is the proper word. Why did you quote what I wrote without "eternity" being with a strike through?

Also, if you could just try to read what Plato wrote you would see he could not possibly be using aiwnios/eonian to mean eternal.

I never did any silly rendering of Plato. You are being mean spirited. Please desist from these attacks.

Furthermore you never answered my question as to what verse in the Bible shows aion or aionios to mean eternal? Just one verse will do.Tony

« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 01:19:18 AM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

as far as I know the Jews Philo or Flavius Josephus used aidion to denote endless duration and aionios to denote limited duration, i've read it somewhere, there are so many statements outside, some contradicting each other, so you can trust nobody

@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

I maintain that we are FINITE, and because of that, ...we cannot behold or COMPREHEND INFINITY... no more than a BLIND man can define the colors and designs found on the shirt you are wearing...

Therefore any USAGE of a TERM which endeavors to TEACH of INFINITY, is being used by one who has no VIEW of it and is therefore INVALID... One cannot TEACH or DEFINE a concept he truly does not understand... and is UNABLE to convey.

We cannot VALIDLY explain what ETERNITY is, ...for it has NO BEGINNING as WELL as, NO END... whereas ALL things we observe in TIME (including ourselves) are in a REALM which denotes BOTH a BEGINNING ...and... an END... of ALL things within it, ...2 PIVITOL and DEFINING attributes ABSENT in the entity which is called, "ETERNITY"...

We can only envision NO END, for time is marching FORWARD without an observeable boundary to stop it within our vision... (though it SHALL END, as CHRIST plainly noted several times that there would be a LAST DAY -- meaning NO additional "DAYS" can follow it, ...and "the TIME of the END", are both noted in Scripture)

We as FINITES, are UNABLE to behold, nor COMPREHEND the premise of "NO BEGINNING", which is EQUALLY important and MUST be INCLUDED in describing and defining, ETERNITY.

A word really does not actually change, the common use of a word may, that does not change the contextual meaning nor an origin of a word.

What I said is that the meaning of a word can change over time. This is indisputable.

But your inference is bogus because if aion/aionios changed its meaning in the last 2000 years since its usage by the bible writers does not mean that the meaning of today should be foistered upon its meaning of 2000 years ago. So your whole argument that words change meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical meaning/usage of aion/aionion.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Apocatastasis

I haven't used the root fallacy. I can tell you must not know what it means or you would not accuse me of using that fallacy.

Oh you are a hoot! This should be good.....

Quote

First, is what Carson calls the 'root fallacy' - often times we'll hear someone refer to the root of a Greek word to make some profound theological statement. In English we know this just isn't true, however: the root of a word may or may not have any real logical connection to it's meaning. For example, the root word for 'nice' is the Latin word meaning 'ignorant'. Or what it, years from now someone applied the 'root-word' theory of linguistics to the word 'butterfly'? A butterfly is neither a fly, nor buttery - the same is true in interpreting Greek. Although sometimes the root of a word does help us get a better idea of what it might mean, that is not necessarily always true." http://heatlight.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/how-to-read-the-word-evangelical-hermeneutics-or-how-to-read-interpret-the-bible/

Oh my. Tony, did you even read what you quoted? Why would you post something that completely militates against your argument?

Quote

Now then, had I tried to break down aionios into its parts and tried to come to the meaning of that word by its root meaning then you might have something to stand on in accusing me.

Tony, don't play obtuse. The root of aionios is aion. The noun is the root of the adjective. You are saying that the meaning of the adjective is neccessarily semantically bound to its nounal root. This is the root fallacy.

Quote

For intance, to say that American is the adjectival form of America and means "pertaining to America" is not using the root falacy.

True, but to insist that all adjectives are neccessarily bound to their roots is just silly. I already gave you one example in gorgeous (which you unsuccessfully tried to explain away). I could make you a list if you want.

Quote

Now, then Gabe,please bring forth in the New Testament where aion or aionios should be translated eternal. Just one verse will do and give your reason why it should be translated eternal.

Why do you pretend that I didn't present some evidence in my OP?

Quote

Why did you quote what I wrote without "eternity" being with a strike through?

I simply copied and pasted what you wrote. I do not know why the strike did not show up in the quote.

Quote

Also, if you could just try to read what Plato wrote you would see he could not possibly be using aiwnios/eonian to mean eternal.

Why don't you explain? And why don't you explain what you think Plato meant by this:

"Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time."

Apocatastasis

What I said is that the meaning of a word can change over time. This is indisputable.

Quote from: Tony

But your inference is bogus....

What inference?

Quote

... because if aion/aionios changed its meaning in the last 2000 years since its usage by the bible writers does not mean that the meaning of today should be foistered upon its meaning of 2000 years ago.

I never argued otherwise.

Quote

So your whole argument that words change meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical meaning/usage of aion/aionion.

It has everything to do with your persistent use of the root fallacy.

Logged

Apocatastasis

@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

Apocatastasis

how did Plato define eternity?, did he maybe define it as the opposite of time?

would eternal times be a contradiction in itself after Platos conception of eternity?

i'm justing asking cause I once read the statement time is the opposite of eternity, and eternal times would be a condradiction in itself

Plato envisioned a timeless eternity in which there is no measure of time. Plato conceived time as cyclical, as was common to ancient Greek thinking. Thus time was symbolized by the circle which, having no beginning no end, quite aptly conveyed the notion of time as an image of eternity.

Logged

Apocatastasis

QuoteBut writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiġnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked."

why should anyone make such a statement if aionios meant eternal?

Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

The important thing to realize is that there are alternative applications of the word "eternal" with regards to eschatological punishment such as that universal salvation is not at stake.

Paul Hazelwood

how did Plato define eternity?, did he maybe define it as the opposite of time?

would eternal times be a contradiction in itself after Platos conception of eternity?

i'm justing asking cause I once read the statement time is the opposite of eternity, and eternal times would be a condradiction in itself

Plato envisioned a timeless eternity in which there is no measure of time. Plato conceived time as cyclical, as was common to ancient Greek thinking. Thus time was symbolized by the circle which, having no beginning no end, quite aptly conveyed the notion of time as an image of eternity.

From what I have understood is that the above is true but in realm of a perception. In otherwords I believe the Greeks knew that they could only really know cycles of time with beginnings and endings but could not perceive a beginning or an ending to certain periods or concepts.

So in my opinion that is where the misunderstandings come from. I think the ones wanting the bible to read a certain way apply english grammer rules to ancient "concepts" so then the debates rages over terms. (I.E it MUST literally be ages or it must literally be forever)

There are other areas where the concepts get lost because we have to term something as one or the other and then debate after the term rather than what we can observe or conceptualize.

From what I can gather Time can be measured but we cannot perceive any beginning or ending to time, or we can see beginning of something and not perceive an ending.

From reading the translated plato's work I try to see past these translational debates and read into what it appeared he was saying by using the rest of the words and concepts being conveyed. I think from reading the bible there is a intelligent duality to the language where the meaning literally and what is perceived can be contained in the same word.

I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis, I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis, I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

bobf

Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms? If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

bobf

I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis, I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

Perhaps all these views fit together.

1. aionios = of / through / during / pertaining the aion2. But which aion is in view that aionios is referring to? It matters because not all aions have the same characteristics.

If it is the present wicked aions in which we now dwell, then your slave verse makes senseIf it is the aion(s) after the resurrection, God's aion if you will, then Apoc's view takes over

So in any passage using aion or aionious you have to ask WHICH aion is in view.

Apo used this verse I guess to prove that aionios can be used of eternality? . . .

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

But this is not the case. The point is that the body God is giving us will have a functional purpose pertaining to the next two eons. That is all one can say.

Just as God is said to be "the eonian God" in Romans 16:26, this is not telling us how long God lives but is telling us about the relationship He has with the eons. He is the One whose Godness is pertaining to the eons. He rules over them, subjecting people to the goal He has for each eon.

There is no dual meaning for eonian. It just tells us that which pertains to the eons. It can't tell us that which pertains to no beginning and no end, because that would be a contradiction in terms.

Another verse which Apoc started this thread with is this:

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

And Gabe/Apoc stated:

Quote

In this verse, aionios describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

This verse also does not show an unendingness value to aionios/eonian. The things that are seen are transient (CLNT has "temporary" and means: "for a season") and "what is not being observed is eonian." So the comparison is not between "temporal" and "eternity" but rather, the comparison is between something which is for a season (the afflictions) and that which is pertaining to the oncoming eons (an eonian burden of glory). It is the glory we will have, which is not seen at this point in time in our lives. The "eonian burden of glory" is that glory which is pertaining to the future eons.

Tony

« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 07:15:46 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Apocatastasis

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 07:43:42 PMThough it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms? If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

Ah, but I do believe that that aionios conveys the idea of timeless eternity which is neccessarily without beginning nor end. I simply believe that aionios is applied as an epithet to things like life and punishment, thereby conveying the idea of divinity. Does that make sense?

Apocatastasis

1. aionios = of / through / during / pertaining the aion2. But which aion is in view that aionios is referring to? It matters because not all aions have the same characteristics.

If it is the present wicked aions in which we now dwell, then your slave verse makes senseIf it is the aion(s) after the resurrection, God's aion if you will, then Apoc's view takes over

So in any passage using aion or aionious you have to ask WHICH aion is in view.

Interesting perspective, Bob.

Indeed, I do think that aionios is often used in the NT to convey both time and eternity. That is to say, aionios life pertains to the coming age, yet also pertains to God (Godly life of the age to come).

Apocatastasis

Apo used this verse I guess to prove that aionios can be used of eternality? . . .

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

But this is not the case. The point is that the body God is giving us will have a functional purpose pertaining to the next two eons. That is all one can say.

Dear readers,

Let us examine the context of 2 Corinthians 5:1. Note the contrasts of opposites:

2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day.

Here we have a contrast between the perishing outward man and the inward man which is renewed.

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding [and] eternal weight of glory;

Here we a contrast between temporary sufferings and aeonian (permanent) glory.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.

Here we have a contrast between temporary things of the visible world and the aeonian (permanent) things of the invisible order.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Here we have a contrast between our earthly, perishable house and our heavenly, indestructible house.

Clearly, aionios here conveys the idea of that which is divine, imperishable and permanent.

Quote

Just as God is said to be "the eonian God" in Romans 16:26, this is not telling us how long God lives but is telling us about the relationship He has with the eons. He is the One whose Godness is pertaining to the eons. He rules over them, subjecting people to the goal He has for each eon.

There is no dual meaning for eonian. It just tells us that which pertains to the eons. It can't tell us that which pertains to no beginning and no end, because that would be a contradiction in terms

Tony, you've parrotted this circular logic for years. Can't an old dog new learn tricks?

Quote

Another verse which Apoc started this thread with is this:

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

And Gabe/Apoc stated:

QuoteIn this verse, aionios describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

This verse also does not show an unendingness value to aionios/eonian. The things that are seen are transient (CLNT has "temporary" and means: "for a season") and "what is not being observed is eonian." So the comparison is not between "temporal" and "eternity" but rather, the comparison is between something which is for a season (the afflictions) and that which is pertaining to the oncoming eons (an eonian burden of glory). It is the glory we will have, which is not seen at this point in time in our lives. The "eonian burden of glory" is that glory which is pertaining to the future eons.

You ignore the contrasts of opposites that runs throughout the passage.

Apocatastasis

was aionios = eternal, only a possible meaning of many or the most common meaning?

I believe that in the NT, aionios predominantly conveys the notion of eternality.

Quote

was aionios without doubt used in the sense of limited duration between Platos lifetime and the time the NT was written?

It was used to refer to both limited duration and unlimited duration.

Quote

what was the most common meaning of aionios then, ever-lasting or age-lasting / long-time-lasting?

I'm not sure.

Quote

if Plato used aionios to denote eternity we must accept this and can't discuss this away but it doesn't mean that it was the common meaning.

Plato did in fact coin the word aionios, and he did in fact use it of eternity. Of course, Tony N. will deny this, even though he is unable to present a reasonable argument for his novel perspective on this particular issue.

The Platonic sense is retained in the NT, as I have argued.

Quote

i also think that Hades isn't used in the NT or the LXX with the greek mythology meaning but in the jewish meaning of sheol, so might aionios have been used in the sense of hebrew olam

Olam was used at times throughout the OT to refer to time extending into the imperceptible. Thus, olam could be used figuratively to convey the idea of time being transcended. Jonah attested to being in the belly of the beast "forever". Indeed, Jonah had lost all sense of time and was brought into a timeless state.

Quote

maybe u wanna read this topic i created, i think it fits well to this topic:

You accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

Gabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

Just as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

Likewise Heaven is a noun. Heavenly is its adjective. The heavenly messenger visited Mary. The messenger is not greater than Heaven. It's realm pertains to that which is of Heaven.

Gabe, when you finally come to see that the adjective cannot be greater than its noun in the Bible, you will finally see things more clearly on this issue.

Besides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

Gabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 11:07:43 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.